In John 17:3, Jesus addressed the Father as 'the only true God'' which semantically means that no one else is true God except the Father. However, Jesus is also addressed as ''God'' in the same gospel (John 1:1, 18, 10:33, 20:28) and still, Jesus addressed others as 'gods' in John 10:34.

John 1:1 Westcott and Hort / [NA27 and UBS4 variants]

ΕΝ ΑΡΧΗ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.

John 1:18 Westcott and Hort / [NA27 and UBS4 variants] θεὸν οὐδεὶς ἑώρακεν πώποτε· μονογενὴς θεὸς ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκεῖνος ἐξηγήσατο.

John 10:33 Westcott and Hort / [NA27 and UBS4 variants]

ἀπεκρίθησαν αὐτῷ οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι Περὶ καλοῦ ἔργου οὐ λιθάζομέν σε ἀλλὰ περὶ βλασφημίας, καὶ ὅτι σὺ ἄνθρωπος ὢν ποιεῖς σεαυτὸν θεόν.4

John 10:34 Greek NT: Westcott and Hort / [NA27 and UBS4 variants] ἀπεκρίθη αὐτοῖς ὁ Ἰησοῦς Οὐκ ἔστιν γεγραμμένον ἐν τῷ νόμῳ ὑμῶν ὅτι Ἐγὼ εἶπα Θεοί ἐστε;

John 17:3 τη δέ ἐστιν ἡ αἰώνιος ζωὴ ἵνα γινώσκωσι / γινώσκωσιν σὲ τὸν μόνον ἀληθινὸν θεὸν καὶ ὃν ἀπέστειλας Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν.

John 20:28 Westcott and Hort / [NA27 and UBS4 variants]

ἀπεκρίθη Θωμᾶς καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ Ὁ κύριός μου καὶ ὁ θεός μου.

What is the meaning of the phrase 'only true God' in John 17:3? I am seeking an answer that sees John 17:3 in conjunction with other passages where others are being addressed as God/god. Please do not answer using preconceived Christological ideas (i.e. Unitarian or Trinitarian etc.). Your answer might reflect either of these, though. I highly encourage the usage of your own words as opposed to using traditional words (consubstantial, essence, trinity, unitarian etc. ) when expounding this scripture.

  • Did you mean to say "discouraged" in the final sentence? – Ruminator May 10 '19 at 16:15
  • I encourage an answer that relies heavily on expounding the passage in question. – Radz Matthew C. Brown May 11 '19 at 3:38
  • Within the aforementioned Gospel, Christ is regarded as being the incarnation of God's divine word. However, the Word of God is precisely that: the divine (godly) Word of the one true God, as opposed to that of some other deity. – Lucian May 11 '19 at 11:35

Jesus said :

I and my Father are one. John 10:30 KJV.

He did not say 'I and my Father is one'. They are not the same person. The Father and the Son are in perfect unity - within one Divine nature. Each possesses divine nature. And they are one, within that single divine nature.

What is true of one (with regard to that divine nature) is as true of the other. Perfectly.

But as to the matter of person : one is Father, one is Son.

The Deity of the Father is the only true Deity. There only is one deity - only one divine nature. In the nature of deity, there can only be one deity. For one attribute of deity is fulness. No other fulness can exist, but the one.

But the perfection of unity that unites Father and Son causes there to be a perfectly shared fulness, within one diety.

Anything other than this - is not true. It is not real. It does not exist.

Jesus said also :

πνευμα ο θεος John 4:24 TR.

'Spirit, the God'. 'God is a spirit' (KJV).

That divine nature which is possessed by Father and Son, that unity which perfectly unites Father and Son, is one Divine Spirit.

A perfection of unity, in one Spirit. An everlasting begetting - Father and Son.

This is the true God : and eternal Life.

| improve this answer | |


αὕτη δέ ἐστιν ἡ αἰώνιος ζωή ἵνα γινώσκωσιν σὲ τὸν μόνον ἀληθινὸν θεὸν καὶ ὃν ἀπέστειλας Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν [GNT]

Taken in isolation, the meaning is straight forward "eternal life is knowing You [the Father to whom Jesus is praying], the only true God." Divorced from the Old Testament, this can easily be misconstrued as Jesus denying the He is God. In fact that is exactly the conclusion of modern day Arians (emphasis added):

But in this verse Jesus is calling God the only true God. That word “only” does not include Jesus. We know this because Jesus placed “and” in between God and himself. This would signify that Jesus is identifying his Father as the only true God excluding himself. This verse should show Trinitarian’s the doctrine is incorrect by the very words of Jesus. Arianism Today

However, as the Arian controversy highlights, a question about the triune nature of God at the time of the Crucifixion would be an anachronism. The proper issue was whether there was one God, as the Jewish faith maintained, or many gods as the virtually every other culture believed. Thus, a phrase "only true God" would be understood in opposition to a belief there are many gods or the Father is the only true God in a supposed pantheon of many (false) gods.

The problem for those who deny the Trinity is regardless of whether Jesus understands a triune nature of God in which He is coequal to the Father, it is impossible to place these words into the context of addressing the "only" true God as distinct from many false gods. While a Greek philosopher might reason and speak like that, a Jewish monotheist would never make that statement:


ἄκουε Ισραηλ κύριος ὁ θεὸς ἡμῶν κύριος εἷς ἐστιν

At best "the only true God" should be "the one true God" or simply "the one God." In reality, the actual words bear little resemblance to a Jewish profession of monotheism. This does not mean Jesus is not a monotheist; it means He made a shocking and radical departure from the traditional expression of that belief.

Not only does Jesus deviate from the traditional expression of "one God," the word He chose is μόνος which is ambiguous. This word is translated equally between only (24 times) and alone or by one's self (23 times). On the other hand the word εἷς has the meaning the Arians attempt to impute to μόνος in John 17:

You are doing the works your father did.” They said to him, “We were not born of sexual immorality. We have one (ἕνα) Father—even God.” (John 8:41)

(Mark 12:29)

It is nonsense to assert Jesus is making a traditional monotheistic expression when He replaces εἷς with μόνος (which may or may not mean only) and then assert the meaning must follow the traditional εἷς which actually has the both the meaning and historical use the Arians attempt to impute to μόνος. In reality, Jesus has made a new revelation of God's nature.

In his letter, John makes a statement similar to the one found in John 17:


For a monotheist, there is no reason to preface "true God," unless there is something else which needs to be conveyed. Rather the two ways Jesus should acknowledge a monotheistic Father who is God are:

"He is the true God..."

"He is the one true God

Consider the Arian analysis of the phrase emphasized above: That word “only” [μόνος] does not include Jesus. That is exactly the point Jesus is making:

And this is eternal life, that they know you, the alone true God...

Jesus is not calling God the "only" true God: He is saying God is alone, by one's self because Jesus is not present with the Father; He is on the earth about to complete the assignment for which He was sent. In other words, the triune nature of God was temporarily disrupted when the Word became flesh. However, the Son is in human form is waiting to be put to death in order to return to the Father. When He returns, the triune nature of God will be restored so it can be said "He is the true God and eternal life."

| improve this answer | |
  • Of course Jesus is calling God the only true God, but people who use this to prove Jesus is not God must interpret this to mean, "You alone are the true God," which is distinct from "You are the only true God." Obviously if Christ is deity by nature, then He also is the only true God. The Trinity doesn't posit multiple Gods, or multiple only true Gods. It posits one God, which nature three distinct and eternal persons constitute. – Sola Gratia Nov 23 '19 at 20:57

[I've tried not to assume any theology, and base everything on the context of the passages.]

"The only true God"

"Only" refers to the fact of there being only one God. This is the doctrine of the Old and New Testaments (Deuteronomy 4:6; 1 Corinthians 8:4-6).

"Only true" as an alternative to the above, being more specific, refers to the fact that other "so-called gods" (ibid.) are not true Gods (Psalm 96:5; 1 Corinthians 10:20).

"The only true God" refers, then, is simply synonymous with "God."

Implications for Trinitarian and other Non-Unitarian Theology

Since this phrase only identifies the Father as the true God (of which there is only one: "the only"), and does not say "only the Father is the true God," Trintarian theology is not precluded by this passage: only if Unitarianism is assumed can "only the Father is the true God" and "the Father is the only true God" be conflated.

Others Being Called Gods

When Christ quoted "I said you are gods," He was quoting Psalm 82:6: "I said, You are gods—sons of the Most High, all of you." This is a psalm about corrupt and immoral judges who didn't care for their people, and did not uphold justice. They were called "Gods," as Moses was (Exodus 7:1), because they exercised juridical authority and in some sense played the role of God, although legitimately and by His own delegation. Jesus' point here was that if they can be called Gods, to whom the word of God came, merely, how is it that it is wrong for the Word, "who [is] God," (John 1:1) to be called God, as He truly is? That is, one who is truly God in the divine sense, can surely be called God if mere humans can be called it who only have a divine authority.

This is not just a Trinitarian eisegesis. Observe that Jesus' response only answers their objection if the above is true. Saying, "but others were called 'gods'" is not an answer to the objection that He was claim to be God: "you, being a man, make thyself God" (John 10:33). And on notion that it should be translated, "make thyself a god," all I will say is that it is precluded what caused them to want to stone Him: "for saying, I an the Father are one." Or as John himself declared: "[Jesus] said God was his Father, making himself equal to God" (5:18; notice this is John's own testimony of why they wanted to stone Him, and not what they said). And also that this gospel begins, written by monotheist John: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God; and the Word was God" (1:1).

Again, when Thomas said to Jesus, "My Lord and my God," He was clearly addressing Jesus as such ("he said to him"). Not only is the suggestion that Jesus approved of and blessed this use of the name of the Lord in vain ("OMG!) blasphemous and antihistorical (Jesus being a Jewish Rabbinical teacher), but it doesn't even fit as a theory: no one specifies the two things God is (your Lord and your God) while using the name of the Lord in vain; whereas identifying Christ as the risen God in the flesh certainly warrants such an identification. After all, Thomas' faith was perhaps weak when before this point, Jesus had plainly claimed to be God:


Seeing Christ risen, and all His claims confirmed and incontrovertable occasioned this confession by Thomas.

| improve this answer | |


Jesus in his prayer to his heavenly Father for the sake of the sheep , not only shows the oneness that exist between him and God, but also does not speak of himself as God, but says to his Father.

John 17:3-6 (NASB)

3" This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent. 4 I glorified You on the earth, [a]having accomplished the work which You have given Me to do. 5 Now, Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was.6 “I have manifested Your name to the men whom You gave Me out of the world; they were Yours and You gave them to Me, and they have kept Your word."(Compare John 17: 20-24)

Notice, (Verse 6) who was it that gave men out of this world to Jesus?

When Jesus said that his Father “the only true God” gave him disciples out of this world, Jesus did not mean that he as God gave himself something. Jesus spoke of all his disciples, not as a gift made by himself to himself, but as a gift made to him by the “only true God,” his heavenly Father.

John 1:1


ΕΝ ΑΡΧΗ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος. Many translate John 1:1 as follows:

John 1:1 (NASB, NRSV)


Others translate it as follows:

Translations by James Moffatt, Edgar J. Goodspeed and Hugh J. Schonfield render part of the verse as "...the Word [Logos] was divine". (Source:Wikipedia)

James Moffatt New testament of John 1:1

1 "THE Logos existed in the very beginning, the Logos was with God, the Logos was divine.

The following is from the book "The Four Gospels Harmonized and Translated", by Count Leo Tolstoy, as follows:

If it says that in the beginning was the comprehension, or word, and that the word was to God, or with God, or for God, it is impossible to go on and say that it was God. If it was God, it could stand in no relation to God.*

In view of Revelation 19:13, what must John 1:1 mean, at most, regarding the Word?

John proves that the Word who was with God “was made flesh” and became Jesus Christ and that Jesus Christ was “the Son of God.” So it would be proper to say that the Word was the Son of God. For anyone to say that the Word was God, “the only true God,” would be contrary to what the apostle John proves by the rest of his writings.

In the last book of the Bible, namely, in Revelation 19:13, John calls him “The Word of God,” saying: “And his name is called The Word of God.” (NASB, NRSV)) Note that his name is not called “God the Word,” but is called “The Word of God,” or God’s Word. Hence John 1:1 must mean, at most, that the Word was of God.

John 1:18


John call the "the only begotten god"who is in the intimate presence of the Father, because he is given power and authority from the almighty God , the Father: Read below Mat.28:18, 1 Cor. 8:6, Heb 1:2

John 1:18 Amplified Bible (AMP)

18 "No one has seen God [His essence, His divine nature] at any time; the [One and] only begotten God [that is, the unique Son] who is in the intimate presence of the Father, He has explained Him [and interpreted and revealed the awesome wonder of the Father]."

Matthew 28:18 (NASB)

**> " And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been

given to Me in heaven and on earth."**

1 Corinthians 8:6 Amplified Bible (AMP)

"Yet for us there is but one God, the Father, who is the source of all things, and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things [that have been created], and we [believers exist and have life and have been redeemed] through Him."

Paul says that God spoke to their forefathers by means of the prophets and now he has spoken to them by means of his Son . Hence Jesus cannot be God.( Heb.1:1-2)

Hebrews 1:1-22 (NRSV)

God Has Spoken by His Son

1 "Long ago God spoke to our ancestors in many and various ways by the prophets, 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, through whom he also created the worlds."

John 10:33-34 NASB

For clearer understanding why the Jews wanted to stone Jesus and Jesus reply I have quoted from verses 31-39 , you will notice that the Jews falsley accused Jesus of making himself "God". If Jesus did claim to be God, it would have been a blasphemy and the Jews were right to stone him. However Jesus claimed that he was the Son of God and to prove this, he replied from the Psalm 82:6 “Has it not been written in your Law, ‘I said, you are gods’?{human judges representing God, not divine beings }

John 10:31-39 New American Standard Bible (NASB)


35 "If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken), 36 do you say of Him, whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’? 37 If I do not do the works of My Father, do not believe Me; 38 but if I do them, though you do not believe Me, believe the works, so that you may [a]know and understand that the Father is in Me, and I in the Father.” 39 Therefore they were seeking again to seize Him, and He eluded their grasp.

John 20:28 (NASB)

28 "Thomas answered and said to Him, “My Lord and my God!”

Some view the expression of astonishment as directed to Jesus, whilst others says that although spoken to Jesus it was actually directed to God. Therefore the intention of the expression “my Lord and my God” should be best understood in harmony with the rest of the Scriptures.

Thomas heard Jesus prayer to his Father calling him the "only true God", (17:3) so there is no reason for Thomas to believe that Jesus was the Almighty God.

Thomas also heard "Peter's confession to Christ", “You are the Messiah,the Son of the living God.”

Matthew 16:15-17 (NRSV)


Thomas was also present when Jesus "Foretold his death and resurrection"


If we are to interpret the expression as being directed to Jesus, as being the Almighty God,then we have to say that Peter is Satan, we certainly know that this is not so, therefore John 20:28 should be understood in tha same manner, and in harmony with the scriptures.

| improve this answer | |

In Mark 13:19, Jesus refers to "the creation which GOD created". He doesn't say, "the creation which I created", or the creation which WE created". If he'd meant "I", or "we", would he not have said as much? Was Jesus not speaking plainly and clearly to his disciples here? Clearly, Jesus is speaking here of God the Father, the same being he calls "the only true God". To say that there's a vast difference between saying " the only true God" versus " the one God" is sheer speculation.

| improve this answer | |





















So, Jn 1:1 says:








| improve this answer | |

What does it mean that the Father alone is “the true God” in John 17:3?

Does it refer to an ontological nature or functional authority?

Jesus did not deny that he is “God” in John 20:28 and thus, even the writer of the gospel of the 4th began it with that affirmation (“the Word was God”) which formed an inclusio to his gospel. The Father is the only true God according to Jesus Christ in John 17:3 yet there are other true gods too in the rest of the 4th gospel since a god that is not a false god is logically a true god (John 1:1, 1:18, 10:35, 20:28).

Since there are many other true gods mentioned in the gospel of John, the writer’s use of “monos” (only) should be examined in relation to determine what precisely is the nature of the Father’s being “alethinos theos” (true god).

John 10:35 comes to mind very handy because it was a quote of Jesus from Psalm 82. In Psalm 82, an explicit polytheistic language is used to refer to the relationship of God either with Israel or the angels depending on which tradition one accepts. If the earliest, it would be the angels as evident in the dead sea scrolls and Greek copies of the old testament prior to the advent of Christ as well as the Targum prior to the MT. The reading of the MT (Israel) is from ca. A.D. 900–1000. The name “god” and “son” in Psalm 82:6 are synonymous, in the sense that both refers to those whom God shares his authority for the purpose of doing his will. On the other hand, the “most high god” is deemed to be the only god that is to be worshiped and he is worshiped even by all the other gods. In the gospel of John, we also see an instance of this in Jesus, who though “God” himself, is declaring the Father as the “only true God”. The Father alone is “genuinely” God is in the sense that he alone is the “father” of everyone (Ephesians 3:14–15) so that everyone’s his “offspring” (Acts 17:23–28). In other words, the Father alone is the true God in the sense that no one is above him but that he is above everyone, including Jesus.

Jesus is also true God but only in the sense of being “monogenes theos” (“only God” ESV, “God the only Son” NRSV, “uniquely existing God” ISV, the only one, himself God” NET) (John 1:18).

By basing on grammar alone, and when read literally, the Father is shown to be the only true God in John 17:3 but by basing on context, we learn that the “Father” alone is the only true God , not by nature, but by role, in that the sense that he is above all and the source of all.

Upon close scrutinisation, John 17:3 cannot be interpreted to mean that the Father alone is the “only one divine person” (Unitarianism). Rather, exegetical analyses have shown that the accurate meaning of John 17:3 is that the Father “alone was the only divine person who had the function or role of being having supreme authority”, in the sense of being a ‘father’, which means that ‘everyone’ (excluding himself) is ‘subordinate to him’.

| improve this answer | |

Your Answer

